We are all responsible for decisions our country makes, Gore says in an exerpt. “We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us?

“Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.”

Previous Comments

I’m beginning to think Green Al has gone off the deep end. None of us are ever completely happy with the way our governmnet or system of democracy works. But with Al, I suspect he wrote this book because his view of the world is not accepted by the majority.

We do govern ourselves in spite of what Al may proclaim. That we govern ourselves differently then he wishes does not mean there is an “assault on reason”. We are reasonable, it’s Al who may not be. Regards,

Paul, I’ve lived in several countries now, including the US, and there’s no other country in the world where the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell take such a prominent place, except places like Iran. The fact is that demagogues and bible-thumpers have completely hijacked the “national discourse” while greater numbers of ordinary Americans stop voting and anaesthetize themselves with the latest “news” about Britney Spears.

The silent majority of Americans are an intelligent, thoughtful bunch, and the ones I know completely fed up with the FOX Noise brand of journalism. I really hope that Gore’s book kicks off a backlash against those who have degraded and infantilized the national discussion for so long.

I don’t need to remind you that the majority of voters in 2000 actually did accept his view of the world, at least more than Bush, whose approval rating is lower than any recent President, even Carter. So it seems reasonable to suppose that Gore actually does represent the view of a majority who have been somewhat marginalized by the electoral college system.

Of course, time will tell. Gore’s has every right to air his views, and the people have every right to assess them on their merits and respond, much as they did with An Inconvenient Truth.

Dew, I think the greatest failure in our democracies, is low voter turnout. I believe in Australia you have to vote or you are fined, but I still believe the biggest weakness in our system is the lethargy of the voters.

The electoral college system in the US is something every presidential candidate is aware of when entering a campaign, so complaining about it afterwards is a bit of sour grapes.

And compared to our friendly dictatorship here in Canada, the US offers voters the ability to inititiate referendums, elect senators, etc., all democratic levers not available to us here in Canada. Regards,

Wrong, Eco-Hitler. The reason why Gore won’t be in politics again anytime soon is because this is an era where the private individual has more power to change public/international policy and thinking than a government has. You won’t like this example, but look at what Bill Clinton has been able to do with his foundation (funded by private donations) with regards to treating and improving the AIDS crisis in developing nations.

Emily, a private individual can accomplish much, but does not have the power to alter public and worldwide policy to the degree you believe.

It is always admirable when a person, any person, and not just ex-presidents or ex-PM’s engage in work attempting to improve humanity. But public policy changes are ultimately only enacted by our elected officials. Regards,

Ummm. Gore was chosen by the majority of voters. He was unelected by the Supreme Court who stood in the way of having every vote counted in Broward County. Haven’t you been paying attention for the past seven years?

“The reason why Gore won’t be in politics again anytime soon is because this is an era where the private individual has more power to change public/international policy and thinking than a government has.”

Great. In other words, you are suggesting the democratic process is a complete waste of time, and we should defer to private individuals, like Gore, to set public policy. Not a very comforting thought. Personally, I prefer people who seek to determine public policy undergo the minor formality of, y’know, getting elected first.

Ironic, then, that people like you become all outraged if, for example, the president of a petroleum company, as a private individual, might seek to change public policy – yet when professional, well-funded lobbyists like Al Gore or David Suzuki do the exact same thing, that’s just fine with you.

But if you want to believe that Gore in any way represents the aspirations of mainstream society, well, you’re welcome to continue deluding yourself.

“You won’t like this example, but look at what Bill Clinton has been able to do with his foundation (funded by private donations) with regards to treating and improving the AIDS crisis in developing nations.”

On the contrary. I like it just fine. I think Fred Clinstone’s actions are commendable. AIDS is, after all, a real problem, with real solutions – unlike one in particular I could mention. Who knows? Perhaps his charity work will slightly rehabilitate his shameful record as President?

Then again, Clinton’s private efforts seem completely overshadowed the current Bush administration’s plan for AIDS relief. Bush has comitted $15 billion to AIDS relief in Africa over the next five years. Let’s see Clinton match that.

So, really, your claim that private individuals (even well-heeled ones) have more power than governments would seem to be without substance, and actually, are quite inaccurate.

“So, really, your claim that private individuals (even well-heeled ones) have more power than governments would seem to be without substance, and actually, are quite inaccurate.”
It was actually from Bill Clinton (at a private charity funding event) that I first heard the argument about private individuals having greater power than goverments. I figure that’s substance.

John, you attack reason as you fail to acknowledge the science on climate change. Science is as close to reason as anything and you disagree with this reason when it comes to climate science. Therefore, your comment history here on DeSmogBlog is an assault on reason.

If you claim to be reasonable and scientific, then it behooves you to accept ALL of science – not just the bits which appeal to you and give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Unfortunately, people like you seem to have ruled out the fact that you could be wrong.

Or, as the old Russian expression has it – you will die in those boots.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.